Reaction Paper No.

G.R 222743

MEDICARD PHILIPPINES, INC. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

A case involving Medicare v. the Internal Revenue Commission G.R. 222743. In this instance,
the parties are debating whether the lack of the loa is detrimental and whether the sums
MEDICARD initially set aside and then paid to the medical service providers should continue to
be included in its gross receipts for VAT reasons. Additionally, in this case, medicard asserted
that the services it provides go beyond merely arranging for hospitals and/or clinics to provide
medical and/or hospital services, and also involve the actual and

A LOA is the power granted to the qualified revenue officer designated to carry out assessment
responsibilities, thus when determining whether the absence of a LOA is detrimental, first things
first. In this instance, it is obvious that an examination of the taxpayer cannot typically be
conducted without a LOA signed by the CIR himself or by one of his lawfully authorized
representatives. Because it is indicated that the absence of loa constitutes a violation, the
medicard has the advantage in this situation according to the rule.

Also in this case, whether the amounts that MEDICARD earmarked and eventually paid to
medical service providers should still be included in its gross receipts for VAT purposes. In this
section of the case, it is stated that 80% of the money will be used for medical purposes, with
the remaining 20% to go towards to the service fee. In the latter case, MEDICARD's sale of its
services is exempt from VAT under Section 109, so the amounts money set aside and
eventually paid by MEDICARD to medical service providers do not form part of MEDICARD's
gross receipts for VAT purposes.
Reaction Paper No. 2

G.R

Understandably, the main points, in this case, have been discussed. This case focuses on the
petitions of Silicon Philippines, where they file a petition for tax credit/refund to recover the vat
on important capital items and assessment on administrative claims for a tax credit. The
petitioner's other petitions are mentioned in this case.

The first issue is in favor of the commissioner of the internal revenue because the tax credit
claim was denied and the evidence was unable to prove the fourth requisite in relation to the
claimed input VAT payments for the third and fourth quarters of 2001. The petitioner's judicial
claims filed with the Court of Tax Appeals for a refund of the input value-added tax paid on
imported capital goods in the second, third, and fourth quarters of 2001 have been DISMISSED
for lack of jurisdiction.

In this case, the implications that they can use are bir 2550q, which uses efps, or an electronic
filing and payment system. Input vat has also been discussed in this case because the claimant
is requesting a refund of their vat. They also explained input VAT extensively because they
mentioned what input VAT is and how it is presented and filed to the bir. They also did mention
here that if the claim for tax refund is denied within 30 days, they could perhaps file an unacted
claim in the court of tax appeals.

In conclusion, their case is been reported crystal clear and also the video presentation is been
edited wonderfully I have a fun time watching it since it is a very interesting video.
Reaction Paper 3

G.R 227049

This case revolves around the issued warrant of distraint and levy to the bpi and focuses on the
petition of CIR or commission of internal revenue. Other issues include whether the CTA had
jurisdiction over BPI's Second CTA Petition. And, did the CIR issue assessments against
Citytrust on time for deficiency EWT, WTD, DFT, and WTC for the taxable year 1986?

In this case I learned that The OSG relies heavily on the letter dated February 5, 1992—that it
was a "final decision" denying Citytrust's protest. Citytrust's failure to appeal the "final decision"
within 30 days from receipt thereof rendered the tax assessment final, executory, and
unappealable. As a result, BPI's Second CTA petition in 2011 was filed out of time, over which
the court below did not rule. AS A RESULT, the petition is Rejected. The Court of Tax Appeals
En Banc's Decision dated March 17, 2016 and Resolution dated September 1, 2016 in CTA EB
No. 1204 are AFFIRMED.

The implications that were addressed in this instance where there was fan or final assessment
notice and pan preliminary assessment notice where they indicated that CIR failed to submit
proof get fan were discussed in group 3. When the court demanded that the petition be
presented, the CIR neglected to submit it and attach a copy. In this case, the powers and duties
of the bir and cir were also mentioned. Its powers and duties shall include the assessment and
collection of all national internal revenue taxes, fees, and charges, as well as the enforcement of
all forfeitures, penalties, and fines associated with them, including the execution of judgments in
all cases decided in its favor by the Court of Tax Appeals and the ordinary courts via
BIR.gov.ph.

The case which the group 3 discuss was presented perfectly I was able to listen well and take
note of the lessons they discuss and the way they edit their video was very entertaining.